‘We just want it to be over’

Robert Novak breaks a little news in his column today, noting that Susan Ralston, Karl Rove’s former executive assistant (and disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s former secretary), is “requesting immunity to testify before Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman’s investigating committee.”

If accurate, this could be a fairly big deal. Last fall, we learned that Abramoff had far more contact with the Bush White House, particularly Rove’s office, than had previously been acknowledged. In particular, we learned that Rove’s Ralston was, as the New York Times explained, “instrumental in passing messages between Mr. Abramoff and senior officials at the White House, including Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman.” Shortly thereafter (late on a Friday afternoon), Ralston resigned.

And now she wants a deal.

For Waxman, she is a link between the disgraced, imprisoned Abramoff and Rove, a principal political target of the Democratic-controlled Congress.

As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Waxman is tirelessly making life miserable for a confused administration during George W. Bush’s last two years as president. Bringing down Rove ranks high on Grand Inquisitor Waxman’s agenda. But Ralston appears to be seeking immunity for self-protection rather than nailing her former boss, and she could be a blank fired by the fierce political marksman from westside Los Angeles.

Or she could have valuable information to share. After all, Abramoff was in constant close contact with Ralston during her tenure in Rove’s office (when Abramoff needed a favor from the administration, she was the one he called), she was involved enough with the Plame scandal that she testified before Fitzgerald’s grand jury, and Ralston once admitted that she was “involved in much of what goes on at the White House.”

For that matter, remember all the missing White House emails that were mysteriously kept on RNC servers? Ralston used three outside domains to broker deals with Abramoff. In one particularly noteworthy email, Abramoff and a client discuss contacting Ralston on her “RNC pager,” because “it is better not put this stuff in writing in their email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc. Who knows?”

Novak added an interesting perspective from the Hill.

Many of these congressmen believe that Rove should have quit when he was ahead as manager of the two Bush elections and left in January 2005. However, they do not want to see him limp out of Washington with his scalp hanging on Henry Waxman’s belt. “We’re not hostile to the administration,” one prominent conservative House member who did not want his name used told me. “We just want it to be over.”

Don’t we all.

Regardless, Novak suggests Ralston wants immunity because her lawyers want to err on the side of caution. Perhaps. But let’s not forget that she, as well as anyone, knows which of Rove’s skeletons are hidden in which White House closets.

Stay tuned.

I just want Novak to be over, too. Douchebag of Liberty, indeed. Somebody should do a compare ‘n’ contrast to Waxman’s “inquisitions” compared to those of Scumbag Danny Burton from 12 years ago. Not much doubt where the substance lies.

  • If NoFacts says Ralston’s info might be a “blank”, then it’s probably a .50 caliber armor piercing round.

    blammo.

    OT, check out Gore’s new book excerpt:

    …It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hoped it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half of the American public still believes Saddam was connected to the attack…

    http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html

  • One man’s “fierce political marksman from westside Los Angeles.” is another’s “mild-mannered Congressman who likes to do his job without fear or favor”.

    I guess it depends on whether you’re a douchebag of liberty or not.

  • Is anyone else offended by Novak calling Waxman “Grand Inquisitor?” Comparing someone whose job it is to make sure the executive branch works like it ought to a person who job was to hunt out heretics and burn them is like comparing anyone to Hitler: it’s just so offensive it shouldn’t be allowed.

    And it’s just another example of the Right projecting on the Left: if any group is America has been engaged in a witch hunt it isn’t Waxman, who is looking into a group of people who have turned our country into something I just don’t recognize. It’s those, like Novak, that called the people who have been right about Bush and Irag (and, oh, just about everything since 2000) traitors.

    You have my sympathy CB. I couldn’t read Novak every day and keep my lunch down. Of course, I do need to lose a few pounds…

  • I wonder who the “conservative congressman” is who just wants the administration “to be over”?

    Any guesses.

    And, yes, I’m basically offended by what-ever Novak writes.

  • Reading that article, Novak sure does sound like a whiny ass titty baby, in addition to his usual “NoFacts” stupidity.

    …Since assuming the chairmanship on Jan. 4, Waxman has acted as though he had spent the past dozen years in the congressional minority contemplating how many investigations he could launch. His committee has aimed at the General Services Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, constraints on global-warming scientists, the misrepresentations of Cpl. Pat Tillman’s death in Afghanistan, private contractors in Iraq and the Plame leak, among other things.

    Yeah, Bob, Waxman is just vindictive. Doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that those are actual scandals. In fact, I think every single one of those examples have (some) Republicans demanding investigations.

    The Bush team has seemed confused and disorganized in the face of this fusillade. Warnings by Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, Waxman’s Republican counterpart on the committee, fell on deaf ears at the White House. The president’s agents appear uncertain about how much they should meet Waxman’s demand for documents…

    Ohhh…K.

    Bush’s cronies are “confused” about whether Congress has oversight authority? Maybe they should read the constitution sometime.

    I hope Novak stays alive a long time, the rest of his miserable life will be spent avoiding people who will ask him why he supported such a foul bunch of crooks.

  • Oh do fuck off you tedious pissant.

    If Waxman is grand inquisitor what does that make the pro-torture gang at 1600 Penn. Ave? I wonder what Bob Noslacks called Ken Starr?

    The man is beyond pathetic.

  • Novak’s trying to launch the fishing expedition flotilla on Waxman but I’m not buying it at all. Ralston would have to know Waxman has the goods on her otherwise she’d be happy to sit in front of his committee and act like AGAG and do her best Alzheimer’s impersonation. Of course she’s asking for immunity for self-protection, but she could have just repeatedly taken the 5th if she thought she was on firm legal ground.

  • One more thought, I get the distinct impression that Novak is trying to beat a retreat to the final fall back position, namely that the sheer number of investigations is evidence that this is just a witch hunt by a “Grand Inquisitor”. If Dems were serious about oversight, there would be fewer investigations!

    Something tells me that even with this kind of lame-o argument, the networks will keep paying the old gasbag keep venting through their megaphone.

  • First of all, Kovac’s a prick. That said and understood makes it easier to see his writings are always rightly slanted. The reason I mentiion this is I hate the way he refers to Waxman as Grand Inquisitor and wanting to take scalps because it suggest Bush, Rove and others as ‘victims’ from the horrible Waxman. In fact, Waxman has gone out of his way to help provide the oversight the rest of congress has ignored the past 6yrs. He is more of a champion in this cause than an “inquisitor” who has gone far and beyond what he could “get by with”. After all, look at his counter part in the Senate…Lieberman…who rarely holds committee meetings much less does any ‘oversight’.
    Anyway, Ralston was in a position to know most of the goings on in the WH but the right questions must be asked because she will not offer any information if not asked specifically about it. It’s like she may or may not need immunity depending on the questions asked but just in case…which tells a lot.

  • Just curious here, but wouldn’t she need to provide something to the committee on what information she has, before they grant her immunity? I don’t know if it works the same way as in criminal law, but in that case, prosecutors don’t just grant immunity unless they KNOW that they are going to get something valuable. Anyone know how this works? Why would they grant immunity to her, unless they knew that she would testify and provide some damning information?

  • There’s a lot of “we just want it to be over” running around Republican circles these days. Tbogg had the following quote posted on his site today, “The pivotal turn in all of this came when the White House decided to essentially drop its support for Wolfowitz, with one senior administration official telling me the situation looks grim. ‘We want it over — one way or the other.'”

    The best for all this to just be over is for this administration to get the hell out of D.C.

  • Chuck (#4),

    It is even worse than you think if one draws out the analogy. In the sector of the “Brothers Karamazov” about the Grand Inquisitor, Jesus has returned to earth and is arrested, because of his preaching. He is interrogated by the Grand Inquisitor and is condemned because his message threatens the power of the Church. Thus, to call Henry Waxman the Grand Inquisitor is to imply that those brought before him are Christ figures. The mind boggles.

  • You know, things are getting every bit as strange as I expected after the Supreme Court installed Bush. It’s always been my observation that the country as a whole takes on traits of the president over the course of the term. Looking ahead in 2000, I envisioned hordes of American lunkheads unable to discern the basic concepts of liberty and freedom, much less the finer points of anything. Now, look what we have. An AG who weasels around questions, obviously evasive, lying, and incompetent. Asked a valid question, the president responds, “I’m not going to talk about that.” A former propogandist rewarded top position in World Bank, “Rules are for little people.” A military lost in an unending rationalized imperialist “cakewalk’. Americans once considered themselves practical, tough, and resourceful. Contrast to auto ad I heard this week: “Gas is $3 per gallon BUT I STILL WANT MY NEW SUV!!!” One may only hope that this is the darkness before some sort of dawn.

  • Comments are closed.